Re: Database in Redhat Linux

In article <904rq3$54b$1_at_wagner.wagner.home>, Victor Wagner <vitus_at_wagner.rinet.ru> writes
>In comp.os.linux.misc Anthony W. Youngman <thewolery_at_nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: In article <8vmgld$om4$1_at_wagner.wagner.home>, Victor Wagner
>: <vitus_at_wagner.rinet.ru> writes
>:>In comp.os.linux.misc Freelancer <someone_at_somewhere.world> wrote:
>:>: I need decide which database going to run for Redhat Linux.
>:>: I know MySQL is the most popular one in Linux world. I need
>:>: you help me to fill out the blank and hole (?) in table below.
>:>
>:>Its a pity for Linux World, that most hype is done by people who don't
>:>know what real database is. So they promote mySQL which is no more than
>:>fast flat-file search engine with SQL-like syntax.
 

>: And it's a real pity that there are so many people who think that the
>: only valid type of database is a SQL database.
>
>Sincerely, I never seen any other kind of database which is usable
>without writing special program for any query. SQL is only practical
>solution've seen, which allows you to type queries in interactively.
>There is also QBE, but it doesn't count, becouse it is
>a) relational
>b) if fully implementted is functionally equivalent to SQL.
>

Ask an END USER to run a query over four entities. Oh, by the way, there's a many-to-many relationship in there somewhere...

Dead easy for us, unless you assume the user is an idiot and stick a GUI in the way - unfortunately that's usually a self-fulfilling prophecy :-(
>
>Restriction which mySQL places on the programmers are worst of all - they
>causes them to PROGRAM, instead of to DESIGN.
>

I don't know mySQL that well, but you need some programming for anything. If you mean triggers, data integrity etc, I gather mySQL was designed for fast extraction, and it sounds like you're using the wrong tool for the job...
>
>
>:>
>:>But database is much more than just search engine. It also should ensure
>:>integrity of data both by enforcing some conditions of them (i.e.
>:>foreign keys and triggers) and by rolling failed transactio back to
>:>consistent state.
 

>: And to me, a database is a complete environment, aka AS/400, Pick, etc.
>: A SQL back-end is to databases what the rear legs are to pantomime
>: donkey - it can stand on its own but is useless without the other half.
>
>SQL + storage manager behind them. Nothing more. Even OS is not always
>neccessary.
>May be FORTRAN
>preprocessor. Clients should be written on normal using
>jdbc, odbc, dbi or some other kind of standartized interface.
>
>Of course good interactive shell is good, but I always have dbish.
>

 A good interactive shell makes life easy...
>:>
>:>So, only free database is PostgreSQL. But PostgreSQL start to
>:>resemble real database only since 7.0 version, becouse before there was
>:>no foreign keys. I would consider that it IS a database, not RESEMBLES
>:>one only when it begin to support outer joins and binary large objects.
>:>Both are scheduled for 7.1.
>:>
>: I think you mean the only free *relational* database - which is not the
>: same thing at all. There are much better databases out there. While I
>
>Please name _free_ non-relational database which is comparable with
>commercial ones. As far as I know, most free non-relational things are
>compared with say Adabas, like mySQL to Oracle or worse.

I don't know of any _free_ ones that are currently usable. I'm working on MaVerick...
>
>: would strongly suggest that all database programmers should know
>: relational theory (it helps design immensely), there are a load of far
>: better databases out there. SQL and relational databases put theoretical
>: purity above practicality and functionality, which is why Oracle is such
>: a beast - I could probably write programs that run faster, do more, and
>: handle larger datasets, and all on a system half the size! just because
>: I don't believe "relational is best".
>
>Guys who wrote mySQL think same way. Unfortunately, they was wrong.
>Becouse there is nothing more practical then good theory.
>
>Theoretical purity gives flexibility, scalability and tunability.
>This is why people don't write on CODASIL anymore.
>

Rules are for the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools. The real world is not amenable to forcing into a relational mould. For some things it works fine, but trying to force non-relational data into a relational straitjacket can (will?) make life difficult later on. Why are people now throwing so much effort at object databases? Try running a data warehouse on a relational db - a big warehouse will bring a Cray to its knees...

That's why I said I could blow Oracle into a cocked hat - I take their strengths, add them to mine, and dodge their straitjacket :-)

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman <pixie_at_thewolery.demon.co.uk>
'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the 
thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man 
lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998
Visit the MaVerick web-site - <http://www.maverick-dbms.org> Open Source Pick